London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203338)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203338

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the patio and paving at the front of the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a two-bedroom ground-floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
On 21 November 2021 the resident made a repair request as the paving slabs on his patio outside the back door had become uneven, which made wheelchair access to the property difficult.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord installed a ramp from the communal pathway to the front entrance of the property following an occupational therapist’s recommendation. On 5 January 2022, the resident reported having difficulties accessing the property due to the ramp’s installation and the paving at the front of the property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 29 July 2022. He said that the landlord had not resolved the issue with the entrance ramp. He also complained on 19 August 2022 that there were still problems with the uneven paving outside his back patio.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 19 August 2022. In this, it informed the resident:
1. it had approved further work to the front paving and was waiting on an appointment date. It told the resident it would keep him informed about this work
2. it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the patio at the back of the property
On 7 September 2022 the resident escalated his complaint about the uneven paving around the patio. The landlord acknowledged a stage 2 escalation on 12 September 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023. It stated:
1. On 7 September 2022, its surveyor requested an occupational therapist report for the patio, and the surveyor suggested concreting the patio as an alternative.
2. As of 15 August 2023, the landlord received a report from the contractor about further work to the patio. The landlord stated that it would need an occupational therapist’s report before it could begin this work.
3. The resident had agreed to contact the occupational therapist to enable the planned work to the patio to go ahead.
In the stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £390 as compensation comprising of:
1. £100 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response
2. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble
3. £240 for the delay in repairing the patio.
The resident was unhappy with the remedy proposed and that the landlord had not completed the repairs to the paving to the front and back of the property. He remained in contact with the landlord and on 26 March 2024 the landlord offered to increase the total compensation offered to £500. The resident remained dissatisfied that this amount did not reflect the impact that the delays had on him.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In the resident’s correspondence, he has referred to historical issues with the paving. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 21 November 2021 when the initial repair request complained about was first raised. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the events relating to the formal complaint made on 29 July 2022.
Additionally in his complaints to this service, the resident reported that due to the uneven paving he had fallen out of his wheelchair on several occasions. He told us that he had ripped the tendons in his shoulder after falling out of his wheelchair on one occasion, which required an operation and limited his mobility further.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his injuries. However, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This may be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, he should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s repair obligations

The landlord has been unable to produce a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement with the original tenancy terms and conditions. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to be able to access this key document. The landlord has provided standard terms and conditions it says were applicable when the resident signed his tenancy.
Clause 2(3)(vi) of the tenancy agreement says that the landlord’s repair obligations include repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the premises. This includes pathways, steps and other means of access.
The landlord’s repair policy, applicable at the time that the events complained about began, says:
1. for vulnerable residents the landlord can adjust its service standards where a delay would put the resident at risk because of their condition
2. for routine repairs the landlord would aim to complete this at the earliest mutually convenient appointment
3. for emergency works, where there was an immediate danger to the occupant the landlord should attend within 24 hours.
The landlord updated its repairs policy in July 2023. The landlord’s updated policy is broadly similar but states it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.

Summary of the complaint issues

From the available documentary evidence and what the resident told us, the Ombudsman understands that the resident raised three issues with the landlord in his initial complaints of 29 July 2022 and 19 August 2022 which this report will address namely:
1. the patio paving was uneven and sloping down from the doorframe despite being attended to several times by the contractor
2. the patio doorframe was unsuitable for a wheelchair user as it created a 1-inch step. The resident told us the combination of this and the uneven paving made it unsafe for him to use this entrance to the property
3. there was a gap between the ramp from the front entrance to the property and the paving of the communal pathway which made it unsafe for him to use.

The paving

In the repair request for the patio on 21 November 2021 the landlord instructed its contractor to re-bed 16 paving slabs around the back door and specified they had to be level and not above the threshold of the back door. The landlord’s repair logs state this was completed on 12 April 2022, but no information is given about what work was carried out.
The resident told us the contractor filled in the paving with sand and it became uneven again in a matter of days. The resident raised a new repair request on 22 April 2022,which should not have been necessary,and the landlord made a recall order for the contractor to level the patio paving again. The landlord’s repair logs record this as completed on 7 June 2022 with no further details. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what action was taken to resolve the repair request or why it took 135 working days to complete this after it was first raised on 21 November 2021. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
As stated previously, in the stage 1 response of 19 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the patio. From the available records, the landlord recorded the following work in relation to the patio between 19 August 2022 and its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023:
1. on 9 November 2022 a repair request was made to address uneven front and rear paving. On 22 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor recorded this as requiring no further action
2. on 26 January 2023 a repair request was made about paving outside the patio doors and a reported trip hazard for a wheelchair user between the patio and door. This repair request was cancelled at an unknown date
3. on 5 May 2023, a repair request was made for uneven paving at the front and back of the property which was causing the resident difficulties due to his wheelchair. This repair request was still outstanding by the time of the stage 2 response.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, we have seen no evidence the landlord took action to address the concerns that the resident raised over this 12-month period, which is not acceptable. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known whether any work was carried out or why the landlord decided no action was required on the repair requests. These were significant failings by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has also not seen any evidence about how it communicated with the resident about his repair requests between 19 August 2022 and 15 August 2023. On 28 April 2023 the landlord records that it planned to speak to the resident to explain it considers no works are required to the paving but there is no indication this conversation took place.
Similarly, on 21 June 2023 the landlord recorded its surveyor had attended the property on four previous occasions. It stated there was nothing that could be done to make the ground more level and the resident needed to obtain a further occupational therapist report if he wanted further work carried out. Due to a lack of adequate records there is no evidence of when the surveyor attended the property, what their findings were or whether they had requested an occupational therapist report about concreting the patio in September 2022 as the landlord later stated in its stage 2 response. There is also no indication the landlord informed the resident about the need to contact occupational therapy until the stage 2 response, 39 working days later. These are failings by the landlord.
As set out previously the landlord stated in its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023 that it would be prepared to concrete over the resident’s patio as anreplacement to the patio paving but would need an occupational therapist report to proceed with this work. This was appropriate, as it is consistent with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy which states all major adaptations must be based on the assessment and recommendation of an occupational therapist.
The resident told us that, as of the date of this report, the landlord has not replaced the uneven patio paving with concrete. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated the resident had agreed to contact the occupational therapist. The landlord has told us it has not received an occupational therapy report regarding the patio since it told the resident this was required.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord would be entitled to expect a resident to arrange an occupational therapist assessment, unless their vulnerabilities prevented them from doing this. The landlord records that the resident requires a wheelchair to mobilise but there are no other vulnerabilities recorded that indicate the resident would have difficulty contacting his local authority for an occupational therapy assessment. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that there is not a failing by the landlord in not taking further action to concrete the patio following the stage 2 response.

The patio doorframe

On 8 September 2022 the landlord inspected the doorframe to the patio. In its repair log it recorded that:
1. it confirmed there was a 1 inch step between the door and patio. The landlord stated it caused this issue when it replaced the door and frame and needed to put this right
2. it had spoken to an occupational therapist who has agreed that the doorframe was unsuitable for a wheelchair user but cannot help further as the landlord caused this problem
3. that the resident had previously been unhappy with the doorframe but the landlord had rejected the original request to replace it
4. it requested a contractor complete this repair request and make sure there is level access between the door and patio.
The landlord’s repair logs say the repair request was allocated to its contractor on 8 September 2022 but this was cancelled on an unknown date. There is no indication of a further repair request for this in the landlord’s repair logs. From the available evidence the landlord and resident agree it replaced the patio doorframe at some point in June 2023.
There is no evidence that the landlord resolved this for over 8 months. This is not consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord had already identified that its actions had resulted in a worse situation for the resident due to his vulnerabilities. This is not acceptable.

The paving of the communal pathway and front ramp

The landlord’s repair logs state that it installed the front ramp on 10 December 2021. The landlord’s repair logs from the installation specify that the joint between the ramp and the paving of the communal pathway must be level. The resident told us that when it was installed, there was a gap between the paving and the ramp. He said he raised this at the time with the contractor but no action was taken. He says when he continued to experience difficulties he raised this gap with the landlord in a repair request on 5 January 2022.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord requested the ramp be checked with the resident present. The landlord’s repair log records state that this repair request was completed on 31 May 2022. There is no information in the log about what the contractor did, what information was given to the resident or why it took 103 working days to arrange a mutually agreed appointment to carry out the repair. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
The resident raised a further repair request on 29 June 2022 about the uneven surface between the entry ramp and the communal pathway. The landlord’s contractor attended on 29 July 2022 to assess what works were needed, from the available evidence the contractor arranged to re-attend with a supervisor.
As mentioned previously the landlord’s stage 1 response on 19 August 2022 told the resident it had approved further work to the front ramp. It told him it did not have an appointment for this yet but would update him.
The landlord’s repair logs recorded on 20 February 2023 that the further work for the front ramp,referred to in the stage 1 response, was completed byits contractor as requiring no further action.There is no indication the landlord updated theresident about this workduring this time.
Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what work (if any) was carried out, why the landlord decided no action was required on the repair requests and what information was given to the resident. As the landlord told the resident it had approved further work for the front ramp on 19 August 2022 it is unclear why it took 127 working days for its contractor to follow this up and decide no further action was necessary. These were significant failings by the landlord.
As set out previously, on 5 May 2023 the resident raised a further repair request which concerned uneven paving at the front of the property.
The landlord’s stage 2 response does not address the resident’s complaint about the uneven paving between the communal pathway and front ramp or explain any planned work to address this. However, the resident told us that the landlord has not resolved the repairs to the gap between the front ramp and communal paving as of the date of this report. From the available evidence the landlord’s repair logs record that:
1. on 20 September 2023 the repair request from 5 May 2023 was completed, 97 working days after it was raised. No detail is given about what work was carried out
2. on 16 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor met with its surveyor to discuss the paving of the communal pathway. There is no indication that this discussion, or its findings, were recorded
3. on 7 December 2023 a new repair request was raised as the paving of the communal pathway was not level with the front ramp. The landlord records there was a potential health and safety issue as the resident informed it he had difficulty using his wheelchair and had fallen out of it
4. on 14 February 2024 a separate repair request was raised that the front paving was not even with the cement ramp and the resident had fallen out of his wheelchair multiple times as a result. The landlord records that it attended within four hours to smooth the ramp
5. on 4 April 2024 the landlord recorded that the repair request made on 7 December 2023 had been completed, 82 working days after it was raised. No detail is given about what work was carried out
6. on 29 April 2024 the landlord re-opened the repair request closed on 4 April 2024 and requested its contractor to re-lay the paving in front of the cement ramp to be level with this. As of the date of this report, this repair request remains open, 32 working days after the landlord reopened it and 130 working days after the original repair request.
The landlord’s actions for the repair request on 14 February 2024 were appropriate as it was consistent with its policy. However, for the others it significantly exceeded the 25 working day timescale in its repair policy for the time which is inappropriate. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what work was carried out for these repair requests, what information was given to the resident and why these have not resolved his difficulties accessing the property. This is a serious failing by the landlord.
The Ombudsman also notes there are indications that the landlord decided to treat the 14 February 2024 repair request as an emergency repair, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities and the possibility of injury. However, from the available evidence the resident had been consistently reporting to the landlord since January 2023 that the uneven paving had caused him to fall out of his wheelchair on several occasions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the priority of the scheduled repair to take account of the vulnerability of the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord did this for the other repair requests since January 2023 which is a failing.
It is important to note that landlords are under an obligation in s.4 of the Defective Premises Act 1974 to take all reasonable steps to ensure a property does not cause harm or injury. There is no evidence the landlord has had due regard to this obligation.

Summary

The landlord offered the resident a total of £400 for the delays in repairing the patio. Its stage 2 response did not address or offer any remedy for its handling of the repairs to the patio doorframe or front paving. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident and the landlord’s response did not address the level of distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its actions.
The resident has told us that he has experienced difficulties accessing the property at both the front and rear entrances due to the uneven paving and the landlord has not resolved this despite the resident raising his concerns approximately 30 months ago. The resident told us that he has fallen out of his wheelchair several times due to the uneven paving which has caused him distress and embarrassment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident’s disability, and the additional impact the uneven paving had on his ability to safely enter the property, is an aggravating factor in line with our guidance on remedies.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the patio and front paving, in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the actions taken to resolve the repair request
2. repeatedly failed to complete the resident’s repair requests in a reasonable timescale and substantially exceeded those in its policy
3. did not replace the patio doorframe for 8 months, despite having an occupational therapist’s assessment that this was unsuitable for the resident’s disability
4. did not take action for 12 months to respond to the resident’s concerns about the patio paving, after it told him on 19 August 2022 it would have a surveyor inspect this. It also delayed informing the resident he would need an occupational therapist report if he wanted further work to be completed
5. as of the date of this report, has not resolved the repair request for the front ramp to be made level with the communal paving, which was initially raised in January 2022
6. did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising his repair requests
7. it has not considered its obligations in the Defective Premises Act 1972.
In considering this, the Ombudsman must raise that the landlord is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments and ensure those who have a disability are not treated less favourably than those who do not. This is set out in the Equality Act 2010. It is not clear that the landlord has had fair regard to its obligations and the impact on the resident in this case, who is likely to have been suffered more of a detriment from the failures set out when compared to someone who is not in a wheelchair.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is best practice that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about. This will be referred to as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between the two versions, otherwise the version will be specified.
From the available evidence the resident made his initial complaint to the landlord by telephone following the attendance of the landlord’s contractor on 29 July 2022.
The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 29 July 2022. However, it closed this down and states it should not be a complaint. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known why the landlord reached the view this should not have been considered as a complaint. This is not acceptable. In line with the Code we expect landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Where a landlord decides not to accept a complaint it must be able to show its reason for this.
Notwithstanding this the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 19 August 2022, 16 working days after the acknowledgement. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with its policy.
From the available evidence the landlord recorded that it had another phone call with the resident on 12 September 2022 and that it escalated his complaint to stage 2 following this call. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what was discussed during this call.
In line with the Code, we expect landlords to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy at stage 2 of the complaints process and to define its understanding of the complaint with the resident. The landlord did not record what issues the resident considered to be outstanding. As such, its actions were inappropriate.
From 12 September 2022 to 15 August 2023 there was correspondence between the resident and the landlord about this complaint, as follows:
1. on 19 October 2022 the resident requested an update. The landlord told him the complaint is awaiting a stage 2 response
2. on 1 November 2022 the resident submitted another complaint about the time taken to repair the patio and replace the doorframe. The landlord replied on the same day that this complaint is currently at stage 2 but is taking longer than expected. It states more staff are being recruited and it will be in contact when his complaint is allocated
3. on 11 January 2023 the resident submitted another complaint about the time taken to repair the patio and replace the doorframe. He also told the landlord he had fallen out of his wheelchair several times due to this. There is no indication the landlord responded to the resident
4. on 21 April 2023 the resident requested an update. The landlord asked someone to contact him but there is no indication it responded to the resident
5. on 23 May 2023 the resident phoned the landlord to request an update. He informed the landlord he was unhappy with the quality of the work so far and had hurt himself falling out of his wheelchair. There is no record of the landlord’s response to the resident
6. on 15 June 2023 the resident requested an update. There is no indication the landlord responded to the resident
7. on 27 June 2023 the resident submitted another complaint. As part of this he stated that he is still having difficulties entering the property due to uneven paving by the front ramp and on his patio. There is no indication the landlord responded to the resident
8. on 15 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It acknowledged that it escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 12 September 2022 and apologised for the delay but did not provide any explanation for this.
This is not acceptable. In line with the Code, the Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of escalation, should not exceed a delay of 10 working days without good reason and should provide the resident with a clear timeframe for when it will issue its response. The landlord significantly exceeded these timeframes and those in its own policy. It also did not provide the resident with a suitable reason for the delay or a timeframe for when it would respond.
There is not a record of the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 or that the landlord provided a complaint definition. However, as set out previously, the available evidence indicates he complained about:
1. the quality of the contractor’s work to even the patio paving
2. the patio doorframe was unsuitable for him as a wheelchair user
3. the issue with the gap between the front ramp and the paving of the communal path had not been resolved.
As above, the additional complaints the resident submitted between 12 September 2022 to 15 August 2023 reiterated he remained unhappy with the handling of repairs to the patio doorframe and the front paving. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response does not address these and is limited to the complaint about the patio paving. This was not appropriate. In line with the Code (2024), we expect that landlords must address all points in the complaint definition. Where any complaints were considered wholly separate, the landlord would be entitled to treat them as new complaints.
As set out previously the landlord offered the resident £100 as compensation for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response.In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is not a reasonable remedy to put things right for the resident considering the extent of the delay and the other complaint handling failings which the landlord did not identify in its response.
In summary, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling in that it:
1. initially refused to accept the resident’s complaint without a valid reason
2. delayed providing its stage 1 response in line with the timescales of its policy
3. did not record why the resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response or define its understanding of the complaint when it was escalated to stage 2
4. significantly delayed responding to the stage 2 complaint, taking approximately 12 months to issue a response
5. did not adequately update the resident during stage 2 of the complaint process or provide a suitable explanation for its delay in responding
6. did not address all the points that the resident raised when he escalated the complaint to stage 2.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the patio and paving at the front of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must have an executive director provide a written apology within 28 days to the resident. It must recognise the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs and the impact this had on the resident.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,450 in compensation in addition to the £500 it previously offered (£1,950 in total). The additional compensation is comprised of:
1. £1,250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delays in repairing the uneven paving and patio doorframe
2. £200 for the time and trouble in pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

*The landlord should not offset the compensation against the resident’s arrears unless this is his preference.

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must respond to the outstanding repairs to the paving between the front ramp and communal pathway. If the landlord is not able to resolve this, its surveyor must produce a written report which must:
1. set out what repairs the resident wants resolved
2. include any relevant photographs of the outstanding repairs
3. set out a schedule of works with timescales for resolving these repairs
4. if the landlord disagrees that further work is required, or considers that an occupational therapy recommendation is needed, clearly sets out the reasons for this and how it has communicated this to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of the resident’s case and provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman within 56 days of this determination. This should consider:
1. how the delays in responding to the repair requests occurred and its practices regarding how it deals with, responds to, and monitors repair requests. This is to ensure that they are recorded, investigated, and responded to appropriately and in a timely manner
2. the record keeping failings highlighted in this report against its self-assessment from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The landlord should consider if there are additional actions it should take to act in line with the recommendations from the spotlight report
3. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
4. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders.